|
|
| (7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{FairMormon}}
| + | #REDIRECT[[Emma_Smith%27s_reaction_to_Joseph_Smith%27s_plural_marriages#Was_Emma_Smith_promised_.22annihilation.22_if_she_didn.27t_accept_plural_marriage.3F]] |
| − | <onlyinclude>
| |
| − | ==Question: Was Emma Smith promised "annihilation" if she didn't accept plural marriage?==
| |
| − | ===There is no "annihilation" in LDS doctrine: An earlier verse makes it clear that death will "destroy" all that is not sanctioned and endorsed by God===
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is claimed that "In the revelation [D&C 132] Emma was promised annihilation if she failed to 'abide this commandment.'"<ref>{{CriticalWork:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy|pages=29}}</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Here are the verses of Doctrine and Covenants 132 in question:
| |
| − | :54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
| |
| − | :55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.
| |
| − | | |
| − | One can see that the commandment given to Emma was to "to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else". This likely is a reference to adultery and/or being sealed to another man and not to accepting the plural marriage commandment. She is to remain faithful and supportive of her spouse. The punishment for committing adultery or being sealed to another man is that she will be "destroyed". The next verse is likely the one that refers to plural marriage though it's not entirely clear. It sets off a new clause with that "But". Plus, a different kind of consequence is promised for not accepting plural marriage. The consequence is that Joseph would "do all things for her; even as he hath said". A much more mild
| |
| − | | |
| − | Keep in mind that that same punishment is promised to both men and women that don't abide strictly by the new and everlasting covenant by either committing adultery or are sealed illegally. This from verse 26 of the revelation:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; '''but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption''', saith the Lord God (emphasis added).
| |
| − | | |
| − | This from verses 41–42 of the revelation:
| |
| − | :41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.
| |
| − | :42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.
| |
| − | | |
| − | So a woman is not supposed to cleave unto another man after having been sealed to another man first in the new and everlasting covenant.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Other uses of the word "destroy" in the revelation are used in relation to those that are not sealed by priesthood authority ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.14?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 132:14]), in relation to those that Emma elects for Joseph to be sealed to and who have pretended to moral purity yet weren't morally pure ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.52?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 132:52]), in relation to Joseph and what will happen to his property if he put it out of his hands ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.57?lang=eng Doctrine and Covenants 132:57])<ref>The reference to "property" does appear to be an oblique reference to women. The language will appear stereotypically sexist to many viewers. So is Doctrine & Covenants 132 sexist? Men and women sealed together are promised to share the same amount of power once they are out of the world in the revelation. See [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.19-20?lang=eng verses 19–20]. See also our page on this: [[Question: Is polygamy sexist?]]. The language in verse 57 is certainly influenced by Joseph's legal milieu which followed a more patriarchal system of marriage that included laws for protecting a man's property including, as they were then legally considered, women. We need to remember that Heavenly Father speaks unto prophets "in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1.24?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 1:24]). So the revelation follows Joseph's legal language and understanding. That does not, however, mean that that is how God valued women ''morally''. Thus the revelation itself does not need to be seen as sexist. It doesn't intend to assign more moral value inherently to men over women. God values us all equally and it is made clear by the revelation that he intends to give us the same blessings once we become gods. We should be very grateful for activists and legal scholars that have reshaped our understanding of marriage and the legal framework around it to not make women property.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{Emma polygamy Hales site links}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | </onlyinclude>
| |
| − | {{endnotes sources}}
| |
| | <!--PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE--> | | <!--PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE--> |
| | | | |
| | [[es:Pregunta: ¿Se prometió a Emma "aniquilación" si no aceptaba el matrimonio plural?]] | | [[es:Pregunta: ¿Se prometió a Emma "aniquilación" si no aceptaba el matrimonio plural?]] |
| | [[pt:Pergunta: Emma foi prometida "aniquilação" se ela não aceitasse casamento plural?]] | | [[pt:Pergunta: Emma foi prometida "aniquilação" se ela não aceitasse casamento plural?]] |
